A few weeks ago,
the pretentious Comics Beat published a smear piece by the director of NY's Cosmic Con, against what he perceives as "toxic fandom". But something tells me he's not taking issue for the right reasons. Let's see what he says here:
No one goes into comics for the big bucks. Creators were happy to share their personal anecdotes and thoughts with readers who loved comics like they do.
There were still industry controversies fans talked about, of course—how Siegel and Shuster were treated horribly by DC, how Jack Kirby and Stan Lee fell out, how Marvel kept changing editors in chief—but you had to buy The Comics Buyer’s Guide or Alter Ego to learn about them.
And there were always vocal fans. When a new Batman movie was announced, and fans thought that having zany director Tim Burton and comedy actor Michael Keaton meant it was going to be campy like the 1966 TV show, they had to write in to their local newspaper to protest.
When Hal Jordan became Parallax and destroyed the Green Lantern Corps, the fan group H.E.A.T. (Hal’s Emerald Advancement Team) wrote angry letters to DC and took out an ad in Wizard magazine. (The internet existed back then, but it was excruciatingly slow and mostly just screamed at you.)
And is that meant to imply it was okay to degrade Hal for the sake of PC directions that never led to any convincing or organic character drama when Kyle Rayner became the replacement? I fail to understand the point here, but it's not hard to guess the guy would say something similar about where Marvel went with Spider-Man and Mary Jane Watson's marriage, and DC went with Identity Crisis. What's annoying about this item is that it doesn't make certain distinctions between what's worth protesting and what would be better to withhold judgement upon, or just not make a big deal out of, which would have to be Burton's Batman film. If that matters, did the fans in question actually intend to see it, no matter the end result of the price of tickets? Well maybe that was, in a way, a mistake. If they didn't think the film was going to take a serious approach and keep the sense of humor secondary, then why make such a fuss? Because they're terrified the end result would only worsen the wider public's perception of comicdom? Please. It should be noted that even novels and theater plays can be affected by the outcome of a film adaptation, but shouldn't be, and that's why, if you really love the source material, then that's all you need. Why make everybody think you're going to throw away money on a movie you might otherwise have no use for?
Sharing opinions, whether positive or negative, required time and effort. Because of that, fans had to take the time to think and express themselves in a way that’d get attention. Even when irate, they had to be thoughtful, constructive, and civil.
Then came the internet and social media. “Social media has certainly enshittified fandom as much as it has everything else in the 21st century,” Mark Waid told me in an email. “There’ve always been brickbat-throwers out there, but when they had to actually write a letter and buy a stamp, you didn’t hear from them as much. Once all they had to do was open a Twitter account, the horse was loose in the hospital.”
I wrote to Mark after reading George R.R. Martin’s blog post, where he lamented that “the era of rational discourse seems to have ended.” Martin started out as a comic book fan. His first published work was a fan letter in Fantastic Four #20, and he’s credited with being the first attendee of the first comic con. Over the years since he’s seen fandom change, and unfortunately not for the better.
“Toxicity is growing. It used to be fun talking about our favorite books and films and having spirited debates with fans who saw things different,” he wrote. “But somehow in this age of social media, it is no longer enough to say, “I did not like book X or film Y, and here’s why.” Now social media is ruled by anti-fans who would rather talk about the stuff they hate than the stuff they love, and delight in dancing on the graves of anyone whose film has flopped.”
This new fandom, which has come to be called toxic fandom, is still just a subset—many more people buy a comic than post angrily about it—but it’s a loud and unpleasant one. Entitled, addicted to outrage, and harmful to the very industry they claim to care about.
Look who's talking. The kind of people who vehemently refuse to defend the creations of the people whose legacies they followed up upon, be it Mary Jane Watson, Scarlet Witch, Jean Loring, Sue Dibny, Karen Page, and of course, the other superheroes themselves besides Wanda Maximoff, and simultaneously, the man writing this cheap piece won't suggest the alleged fans try boycotting books that don't meet their favor instead to send a message. He also doesn't acknowledge that there's certain creators who've engaged in reprehenisble behavior, including Waid, who
was sued several years ago by graphic novelist Richard Meyer for tortious interference in a deal with Antarctic Press. Or how about
Dan Slott's worst conduct in any medium? How come creators are exempt? If that's how it's going to be, this is just another of victimology in motion.
Each Cosmic Con centers on a theme, and for our last show this past February, the theme was “Battling Hate.” We especially wanted to highlight how, from the industry’s early days, Superheroes fought against fascism and intolerance, to over eight decades of stories mixing in adventures, suspense and thrills with a healthy dose of morality. Helping define right from wrong, in the minds of both young adults and teenagers, setting the stage for “Truth, Justice and the American Way”. We had a “Battling Hate” panel, featuring an all-star lineup: Rags Morales, Ann Nocenti, Alisa Kwitney, Danny Fingeroth, Keith Williams, and Joe Illidge.
Uh oh. They lined up
the artist who illustrated the offensive Identity Crisis miniseries, and hasn't shown any genuine remorse for the misogyny it's accused of emphasizing? Gee, that sure is some dedication to "battling hate" right there. I'm not even convinced he's dedicated to battling anti-Israel hate if that's the kind of people he's associating with, and come to think of it, if Fingeroth and Nocenti didn't object to Morales' presence either unless he disowned the garbage, then they too have disappointed. It's also vital to note that, in sharp contrast to yesteryear, today's comics don't battle against the fascism and intolerance of
Islamic terrorism, and if that continues to be the case, and nobody argues why it's vital to tackle such issues, then the Cosmic Con panel's "message" falls flat.
We also produced a con-exclusive “Battling Hate” comic. I’d thought it was an easy enough message to get behind (it wasn’t political in any way), but when I reached out to writers and artists to contribute, many were willing to share their stories and thoughts with me, just not in print.
These industry veterans told me that on many occasions they’ve received online backlash and personal attacks, so they just stopped sharing anything beyond whatever project they were promoting.
Roy Thomas, a fan-turned-pro who went on to become an industry legend, cordially declined participating in the comic. “I received quite a bit of toxic hate beginning last April when it was announced that I’d be credited in Deadpool & Wolverine as co-creator of Wolverine,” he wrote to me. “It made me determined…[to avoid] a con where I might find myself in the company of the people who had attacked me.” He’s written an article about the ordeal for an upcoming issue of his own magazine, Alter Ego #194.
This soft-spoken, erudite, 84-year-old man has been bullied into silence. And because of that, the rest of us are missing out on a treasure of stories and knowledge. There aren’t many Bronze Age creators left, every day we lose some of that history.
And this too obscures
the more exact picture regarding Thomas' case. Some of the people who were ragging on Thomas began with the widow of Len Wein, and didn't stop there. I may have spotted the awful Dan DiDio attacking Thomas too on Facebook when this was brought up. Somehow, it's just like DiDio to throw a more decent veteran like Thomas under the bus. In any event, the guest writer's failure to consider what industry insiders think of Thomas is dismaying.
“The intensity of fan reactions was different in the 80s and 90s,” Ann Nocenti told me. “Fans would send passionate letters, sometimes up to six pages, single spaced. The language and context were more moderate, because fans who took the time to write or type their grievances, were aware that no one would read their comments if they were nasty or profane. The internet brought anonymity. Now comments can devolve into profane tirades, and no one can call them out. Since there is no accountability, some feel they can get away with being vulgar and offensive.”
“Embattled pros who aren’t white dudes like me,” Waid notes, “I know how much worse they get it. When I was embroiled with that nuisance suit a few years ago that involved ComicsGate, younger creators were privately sharing with me incidents [and] posts…they had received from æfandom,’ and they were plentiful and…repulsive.”
“Yeah, it’s easy to say ‘well, they should just ignore that stuff,’ but the newer you are at this, the more you depend on social media for promotion. It’s a necessary evil, and most contemporary creators don’t have the luxury of walling themselves off absolutely from social media.”
Gee, sounds like Waid's implying these "toxic fans" only go after racial minorities, and that their bile has nothing to do with lack of story merit whatsoever. But what about
when Ethan Van Sciver was attacked in the past decade? And I ask that as somebody who doesn't really care for his work. Waid's just making clear he's unrepentant for any attention the Comicsgate campaign's called to wrongful practices in the industry, and refusal to take responsibility from within is practically what enabled men like
Neil Gaiman to get away with their terrible deeds for years.
This culture of incivility has migrated from the virtual to the real world, and, sadly, even from fans to some professionals. Larry Hama is a third generation Japanese American and a Vietnam vet. When he first started writing the property he’s most known for, G.I Joe “I was called ‘a fascist’ by a fellow professional. It was during a public event, in front of colleagues and my wife.” When Larry asked the guy if he bothered to read the books, he answered, “I don’t need to read them to know what they’re about.”
When we forget that the creator we’re interacting with is a human being, and when we insult, harass, or intimidate them, or when we see others do it and say nothing, we all lose out. We miss out on their stories, opinions, and tips about the very thing we love. Shutting down our “primary sources” makes fandom a less pleasant place and comics a less fun hobby.
The first recorded Toxic Fan incident that I am aware of involved Jack Kirby. Back in the days of Simon and Kirby working out of Timely (Later Marvel) offices, writing Captain America stories trouncing Fascists and Nazis. Apparently, some Toxic fans (Supremacists, in this particular case) took issue with that and called the Timely office, spewing curses and threats. According to legend, Kirby took the call and in the tense exchange, was threatened in being beaten to a pulp if the “fan” was ever to meet him at a street corner. Kirby offered to run down to the corner and resolve this dispute at the nearest street corner. Co-workers mention that Kirby ran downstairs in anticipation of a fight, just to have this particular caller chicken out.
The guest writer loses all credibility when he claims pro-National Socialist demonstrators were "fans" of a company with Jewish founders, and comics with Jewish creators. And Capt. America was written as an anti-fascist combatant right from the very start of the Golden Age series; the way the Comics Beat guest writer puts it, you'd think Cap had been created several years earlier. I do realize even today, there's all sorts of mental cases out there who could inexplicably buy the products and creations of people with Israeli ancestry, but even so, that's not the case in Kirby's time at all. These were monsters who opposed any negative portrayal of their oh-so precious totalitarians during WW2. I hesitate to think how it would turn out today, if anybody so much as dared to take a negative position on Islam, and there were some examples during the Golden Age of comics. Something I'm sure the guest writer would otherwise fail to address today, if it matters.
All that aside, where has this writer been in the past 2-plus decades, when Joe Quesada spared no expense destroying everything Cap was meant to stand for, making the USA into a scapegoat post-911? Since then, the very image of Captain America even as a costume
has been degraded for the sake of far-left political ideologies, while only so many apologists stood idly by as Jewish creations were desecrated for the sake of this slop. One more reason why it's pathetically cheap to scapegoat Comicsgate.
Some of the commentors saw through this shoddy item, and one said:
This article sucks because I was interested to hear what the panel was like and what those people had to say about battling hate. You keep quoting mark waid for some reason. The Roy Tomas claim seems flimsy. Nobody in this article was silenced and if they were you didn’t talk about it. If you’re talking about backlash you receive from a controversial move you made in a magazine that you publish you’re not exactly being silenced and that’s the only example you used to prop up your click bait article title. It doesn’t seem like we’re missing out on any comics. Hearing what the panel had to say unfiltered would be an actually interesting read. Is there a video or transcript?
Probably not. And the writer's unlikely to take any issue with Comics Beat's own wrongdoings. Another said:
This article is a disgusting travesty- for one thing, it speaks volumes that it has a credit by Heidi MacDonald before revealing it’s by the showrunner of Cosmic Con- but the fact that it implies any criticism of professionals is akin to hate speech is bad enough. Roy Thomas has been an outspoken conservative for decades- which is his right- and says things in print (!) like he refuses to capitalize “Black” in “Black people” until “White” for “White people” gets equal capitalization. Thomas’s Alter Ego features regular contributions from journalist James Rosen, who was too extreme for FOX NEWS (!), and now works for Newsmax, a conversative channel that pushes the great displacement theory that immigrants are here to steal votes from White people.
It’s nonsense. Thomas and his manager John Cimino have repeatedly posted that they’ve received death threats; it’s a deflection tactic to move attention away from blatant and disgusting credit theft. I’m amazed there’s no mention in this article about the repeated racial and sexist attacks on creators that have continued for years, especially increasing in modern times with middle aged white male comic fans who complain that comics have gotten “too woke”.
“This soft-spoken, erudite, 84-year-old man has been bullied into silence.” It’s disgusting but also rather easily disproven, since Thomas has not been bullied (called into accountability for your deeds is not bullying), and certainly hasn’t been SILENT as his upcoming issue (great it got a plug in this article! THAT’S being “bullied into silence”) of Alter Ego attests.
There are hateful, racist pricks in every community. As someone who actively fights against said racist pricks, I find it astonishing that online criticism against people who actively seek payment to autograph things- therefore making them public figures- makes them equate that with bullying and being silenced.
Here’s a tip: if you’re being bullied for taking positive stances against hate, screw the bullies. Get louder. If you’re curiously changing the narrative of your career and contradicting decades of previously recorded statements, guess what- people are gonna comment on that. And that’s not bullying.
Heidi, you should never have approved this bulls**t. Or at least rewrote it!
The same poster
follows this up on his own blog with a longer takedown. Another said:
I’m not disagreeing with this article. The comic fandom is insane. No creator should be attacked in such a matter that makes them feels scared for their life let alone needs police intervention.
I do find it funny you spoke with Mark Waid. Mark lead a toxic fan brigade against Antarctic Press when they were going to print Richard C. Meyer’s book. Toxic fans flooded all of the phone lines to a hospital that even emergency calls couldn’t get in or out.
Let us not forget the time Tim Doyle lead a group of fans against the Breitweisers because Mitch publicly congratulated Donald Trump for winning the 2016 election. This resulted in Betty getting multiple rape threats and the both receiving death threats.
Then there was the vandalism and threats against the Florida pizza place, Gotham City Pizza, for hosting Ethan van Sciver. Thankfully, many of Ethan’s fans raised more than enough to pay for the damages and a security system to catch further attacks.
I understand why Comics Beat wouldn’t include these testimonies of toxic fandom. These creators “voted wrong” and therefore many involved with this site would think that is justified. Most deranged and violent people often try to find justifications for their malevolent behavior.
A most considerable reason why MacDonald and company's commentaries aren't worth the bytes they're posted on. Here's one more:
Mark Waid is an absolute hypocrite. He has spread false rumors online and bashed people without proof or facts. His audacity here is ridiculous.
It's about time he retired from professional writing already, and MacDonald should do the same. This is another of the laziest propaganda pieces she and her colleagues have posted for the sake of undermining fandom's causes, no matter how legitimate or not they be. This is why her awful Comics Beat site shouldn't be read.
Labels: conventions, dc comics, Green Lantern, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, politics, violence, women of dc, women of marvel